Terrifying New Study Links Coffee to Glaucoma

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Terrifying New Study Links Coffee to Glaucoma

image

Heavy coffee drinkers may be at an increased risk for vision problems.

What's a typical morning like for you? Maybe it involves putting on a pot of coffee and consuming a few cups before leaving the house. Perhaps you like to grab some freshly brewed java on the way to work, or guzzle a cup or two after lunch for a pick-me-up. No matter how you get your coffee fix, you might be putting yourself at risk: a new study has linked caffeine consumption with exfoliation glaucoma or exfoliation glaucoma suspect.

The study was composed of "78,977 women from the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) and 41,202 men from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS) who were at least 40 years of age, did not have glaucoma, and reported undergoing eye examinations from 1980 (NHS) or 1986 (HPFS) to 2008." Scientists tracked the participants' caffeine consumption through questionnaires and medical records, and found that those who consumed 500mg or more of caffeine per day were at a higher risk for glaucoma.

"Compared to abstainers," those who drank three or more cups of coffee a day were at a higher risk for the eye disease, which can permanently affect vision and even lead to blindness. There is some good news, however, if you prefer a non-coffee caffeine buzz. "We did not find associations with consumption of other caffeinated products (caffeinated soda, caffeinated tea, decaffeinated coffee or chocolate) and risk of EG/EGS."

This is alarming news if, like me, you permanently have a cup of coffee by your side; I can't even drive a car until I've consumed at least three cups in the morning. While your instinct (and mine) might be to panic, this is only the first study to link coffee and glaucoma, so there's more science to be done before we fully understand the relationship between them.

Source: IOVS

Image: UCI

Permalink

No surprise there. People tend to not think twice about caffeine because its legal and has some positive benefits. Although people neglect to think about that caffeine has a slight but pretty addictive physicality. Meaning if you drink coffee for a year in heavy doses and stop cold turkey, you will crave it and/or get physical withdrawls. Not to mention that 1-10,000 deaths a year are from caffeine.

Moderation is the key.

Sarah LeBoeuf:
There is some good news, however, if you prefer a non-coffee caffeine buzz. "We did not find associations with consumption of other caffeinated products (caffeinated soda, caffeinated tea, decaffeinated coffee or chocolate) and risk of EG/EGS."

Well then it's not caffeine that gives you Glaucoma. It's coffee.

I'll go blind before I give up coffee. Wait... I will? Really? It's not supposed to be true. :(

Well, I guess I am safe then (I don't drink coffee)

I did a little digging and it seems that caffine only accelerates glaucoma, so if you dont have it at all it seems you can chug without fear.

Pretty sure no one in my family has suffered from glaucoma before and they're heavier coffee drinkers than I. I'll stick with my one cup in the morning MAYBE two if I really need a pick me up.

HOLY SHIT!

Gustav III of Sweden was right!

image

The king ordered the experiment to be conducted using two identical twins. Both of the twins had been tried for the crimes they had committed and condemned to death.

Their sentences were commuted to life imprisonment on the condition that one of the twins drank three pots[1] of coffee, and the other drank the same amount of tea, every day for the rest of their lives.[4]

Two physicians were appointed to supervise the experiment and report its finding to the king. Unfortunately, both doctors died, presumably of natural causes, before the experiment was completed.

Gustav III, who was assassinated in 1792, also died before seeing the final results. Of the twins, the tea drinker was the first to die, at age 83; the date of death of the surviving coffee drinker is unknown.[6]

delicious double irony

SaintlyTurkey:

Sarah LeBoeuf:
There is some good news, however, if you prefer a non-coffee caffeine buzz. "We did not find associations with consumption of other caffeinated products (caffeinated soda, caffeinated tea, decaffeinated coffee or chocolate) and risk of EG/EGS."

Well then it's not caffeine that gives you Glaucoma. It's coffee.

Interestingly based on what the article says about the study it isn't caffeine or coffee it's only caffeine with coffee.

It also sounds like it was only in the really high consumers that there was any significant results. Also the data sets they were using are not really good any ways. Besides it's entirely possible there is something else heavy coffee drinkers tend to do that is causing the glaucoma.

Personally I don't think lay news media should report on observational studies it does way more harm than good, unfortunately we can't stop them because of free speech so we'll just have to teach people to understand that these kind of findings don't really mean anything until they can be further substantiated.

Regards,
Jordan

GAunderrated:
No surprise there. People tend to not think twice about caffeine because its legal and has some positive benefits. Although people neglect to think about that caffeine has a slight but pretty addictive physicality. Meaning if you drink coffee for a year in heavy doses and stop cold turkey, you will crave it and/or get physical withdrawls. Not to mention that 1-10,000 deaths a year are from caffeine.

Moderation is the key.

Um...where are 1 to 10,000 deaths a year caused by caffeine? What study proved this? Because heart attacks certainly don't count, that's pre-existing conditions and heart issues, NOT caffeine.

Now, I know there's been studies and proof of 100,000's of deaths a year from alcohol through either poisoning or DUI wrecks or whatever else.

Caffeine: 1
Alcohol: 0

Sarah LeBoeuf:
While your instinct (and mine) might be to panic, this is only the first study to link coffee and glaucoma, so there's more science to be done before we fully understand the relationship between them.

No, my first instinct is to go 'So what?' Everything I consume is apparently harmful to me in some way or other whether it causes cancer, glaucoma or some other damn thing. How about studies to show what things WON'T harm and/or kill me? It'd probably result in a much shorter list.

So...

Phase 1- Drink a lot of coffee
Phase 2- ?
Phase 3- Medicaid buys you marijuana when you retire

Deathfish15:

GAunderrated:
No surprise there. People tend to not think twice about caffeine because its legal and has some positive benefits. Although people neglect to think about that caffeine has a slight but pretty addictive physicality. Meaning if you drink coffee for a year in heavy doses and stop cold turkey, you will crave it and/or get physical withdrawls. Not to mention that 1-10,000 deaths a year are from caffeine.

Moderation is the key.

Um...where are 1 to 10,000 deaths a year caused by caffeine? What study proved this? Because heart attacks certainly don't count, that's pre-existing conditions and heart issues, NOT caffeine.

Now, I know there's been studies and proof of 100,000's of deaths a year from alcohol through either poisoning or DUI wrecks or whatever else.

Caffeine: 1
Alcohol: 0

US government gets estimates of deaths and causes from hospitals and compiles it each year. That is where I got my information from. Although your quick defense of your drug of choice is amusing, especially when you have to go to alcohol to defend it. No one in their right mind would say that caffeine is worse than alcohol, but to outright close your ears and pretend that caffeine in large doses isn't good for you is your choice.

As I said in my previous post, moderation is the key.

Seeing as this is the first study that has a link to that, I will withhold my panic until further proof from science.

Also, I just bought my coffee from a coffee shop and I'll be damned if I have to dump it over this.

It's so gooooood.

canadamus_prime:

Sarah LeBoeuf:
While your instinct (and mine) might be to panic, this is only the first study to link coffee and glaucoma, so there's more science to be done before we fully understand the relationship between them.

No, my first instinct is to go 'So what?' Everything I consume is apparently harmful to me in some way or other whether it causes cancer, glaucoma or some other damn thing. How about studies to show what things WON'T harm and/or kill me? It'd probably result in a much shorter list.

Pretty soon that will be nearly impossible to have food that wont cause cancer. Companies such as monsanto are trying to pass a bill so that they do not have to even label something as genetically modified food. Also if you are a documentary lover and like learning about what you eat you should watch:

1. Food inc (documentary its on netflix)

2. Men who make us fat (documentary on youtube)

Okay, so first things first, I hate when studies aren't available in their entirety online because no way am I going to pay $15 for a copy of that just to spend five minutes on the internet picking it apart a bit for the layman.

But just based on the abstract, that many participants almost certainly means that they were self-reporting their intake, and probably not every day. In fact, the standard sorts of questionnaires for studies like this will check up on people once every few years and have them try to remember how much they ate and drank and of what since the last time they reported in. This is pretty notoriously unreliable, often being off by as much as 30% one way or the other because even ignoring the fact that people will tell you what they think you want to hear, good luck remembering how much of various foods you ate in the past two years. Again, I don't have access to the whole article so I can't say for certain that was what went on, but it's pretty likely. And of course there's the whole correlation does not equal causation thing that shouldn't even be necessary to get into.

Also of note, when they say a result is statistically significant it means it's more likely than not that the result didn't simply occur through random chance. And they don't disclose the absolute risk which always annoys me. Relative risk is important, and I'd certainly like to know if people who smoke are 30 times as likely as non-smokers to get lung cancer or whatever, but as far as actually making a choice for myself, absolute risk is more important.

I'm not a coffee drinker, but if I was, knowing that the absolute risk of glaucoma for coffee drinkers is 1.5% as opposed to 1% for people who don't drink coffee is a much more relevant bit of info for my own decision making than knowing that drinking coffee makes me 50% more likely to get glaucoma. A 50% increase in an absolute risk of 1% is not as worrisome as a 50% increase in an absolute risk of, let's say, 20%.

Long story short, I wouldn't waste too much time worrying about this, regardless of what they reported the absolute risk to be.

SaintlyTurkey:

Sarah LeBoeuf:
There is some good news, however, if you prefer a non-coffee caffeine buzz. "We did not find associations with consumption of other caffeinated products (caffeinated soda, caffeinated tea, decaffeinated coffee or chocolate) and risk of EG/EGS."

Well then it's not caffeine that gives you Glaucoma. It's coffee.

Yeah exactly, something else must be present in the beans, this requires further research to find out if it's a strain of bean or all strains or w/e.

Tbh, I'm gonna keep drinking shitloads because it reduces the risk of prostate cancer.

I place male functionality above the need for great vision. My eyes are shitty anyway.

SaintlyTurkey:

Sarah LeBoeuf:
There is some good news, however, if you prefer a non-coffee caffeine buzz. "We did not find associations with consumption of other caffeinated products (caffeinated soda, caffeinated tea, decaffeinated coffee or chocolate) and risk of EG/EGS."

Well then it's not caffeine that gives you Glaucoma. It's coffee.

Decaffeinated coffee isn't coffee all of a sudden?

OT: Now this makes me reconsider my caffeine intake. I usually get 6 cups of espresso every morning and 6 cups during the evening. Then again caffeine has been shown to reduce the risk of getting heart diseases and that was a 10 year long study. I am also sceptical at the data being presented here. Caffeine in every form except for coffee seems to be safe, and decaf seems to be safe. So they're not linked with coffee and not linked with caffeine. Oh well, I wont stop drinking coffee just because of this in either case.

Yopaz:

Decaffeinated coffee isn't coffee all of a sudden?

Well, not real coffee anyway.

GAunderrated:

canadamus_prime:

Sarah LeBoeuf:
While your instinct (and mine) might be to panic, this is only the first study to link coffee and glaucoma, so there's more science to be done before we fully understand the relationship between them.

No, my first instinct is to go 'So what?' Everything I consume is apparently harmful to me in some way or other whether it causes cancer, glaucoma or some other damn thing. How about studies to show what things WON'T harm and/or kill me? It'd probably result in a much shorter list.

Pretty soon that will be nearly impossible to have food that wont cause cancer. Companies such as monsanto are trying to pass a bill so that they do not have to even label something as genetically modified food. Also if you are a documentary lover and like learning about what you eat you should watch:

1. Food inc (documentary its on netflix)

2. Men who make us fat (documentary on youtube)

Speaking of "genetically modified" *sarcastic air quotes* food...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2541-Feeding-Edge

If it's not associated with other caffeine products than perhaps it's linked to something else in the coffee. Should of had a decaff control.

Oh dear what a shame for the coffee drinkers. *sips on tea*

SaintlyTurkey:

Yopaz:

Decaffeinated coffee isn't coffee all of a sudden?

Well, not real coffee anyway.

Why is that so if I may ask? It still tastes roughly like coffee, it still contains most of the same chemicals as coffee (even caffeine).

canadamus_prime:

GAunderrated:

canadamus_prime:

No, my first instinct is to go 'So what?' Everything I consume is apparently harmful to me in some way or other whether it causes cancer, glaucoma or some other damn thing. How about studies to show what things WON'T harm and/or kill me? It'd probably result in a much shorter list.

Pretty soon that will be nearly impossible to have food that wont cause cancer. Companies such as monsanto are trying to pass a bill so that they do not have to even label something as genetically modified food. Also if you are a documentary lover and like learning about what you eat you should watch:

1. Food inc (documentary its on netflix)

2. Men who make us fat (documentary on youtube)

Speaking of "genetically modified" *sarcastic air quotes* food...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2541-Feeding-Edge

Well no offense to Bob because I like his shows but that video was pure heresay. There is no data or sources that suggest his statement was nothing more than an opinion of an individual. Again if you would like to learn something about the food you eat you should check out those documentaries.

This is probably going to be a low blow so forgive me but if you prefer going by someone sounding right rather than the stats that prove him right, Mit Romney will be a great president for you.

canadamus_prime:

GAunderrated:

canadamus_prime:

No, my first instinct is to go 'So what?' Everything I consume is apparently harmful to me in some way or other whether it causes cancer, glaucoma or some other damn thing. How about studies to show what things WON'T harm and/or kill me? It'd probably result in a much shorter list.

Pretty soon that will be nearly impossible to have food that wont cause cancer. Companies such as monsanto are trying to pass a bill so that they do not have to even label something as genetically modified food. Also if you are a documentary lover and like learning about what you eat you should watch:

1. Food inc (documentary its on netflix)

2. Men who make us fat (documentary on youtube)

Speaking of "genetically modified" *sarcastic air quotes* food...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2541-Feeding-Edge

You're seriously trying to suggest selective breeding is the same as genetic modification?

Think about it for a minute. Please.

Yopaz:

Why is that so if I may ask? It still tastes roughly like coffee, it still contains most of the same chemicals as coffee (even caffeine).

Doesn't wake you up in the morning though, which may as well be the purpose for coffee.

GAunderrated:

canadamus_prime:

GAunderrated:

Pretty soon that will be nearly impossible to have food that wont cause cancer. Companies such as monsanto are trying to pass a bill so that they do not have to even label something as genetically modified food. Also if you are a documentary lover and like learning about what you eat you should watch:

1. Food inc (documentary its on netflix)

2. Men who make us fat (documentary on youtube)

Speaking of "genetically modified" *sarcastic air quotes* food...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2541-Feeding-Edge

Well no offense to Bob because I like his shows but that video was pure heresay. There is no data or sources that suggest his statement was nothing more than an opinion of an individual. Again if you would like to learn something about the food you eat you should check out those documentaries.

This is probably going to be a low blow so forgive me but if you prefer going by someone sounding right rather than the stats that prove him right, Mit Romney will be a great president for you.

How exactly is selective breeding any different from genetic modification? The results are essentially the same and the latter doesn't take as long. As Bob says the only difference is that the former is done by friendly looking farmers in straw hats and overalls and the latter is done by scary looking dudes (or dudettes) in lab coats.

Canadish:

canadamus_prime:

GAunderrated:

Pretty soon that will be nearly impossible to have food that wont cause cancer. Companies such as monsanto are trying to pass a bill so that they do not have to even label something as genetically modified food. Also if you are a documentary lover and like learning about what you eat you should watch:

1. Food inc (documentary its on netflix)

2. Men who make us fat (documentary on youtube)

Speaking of "genetically modified" *sarcastic air quotes* food...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2541-Feeding-Edge

You're seriously trying to suggest selective breeding is the same as genetic modification?

Think about it for a minute. Please.

Care to explain the difference to me then, besides what I already stated above?

disgruntledgamer:
If it's not associated with other caffeine products than perhaps it's linked to something else in the coffee. Should of had a decaff control.

The article states there's no link with decaf.

SaintlyTurkey:

Yopaz:

Why is that so if I may ask? It still tastes roughly like coffee, it still contains most of the same chemicals as coffee (even caffeine).

Doesn't wake you up in the morning though, which may as well be the purpose for coffee.

Oh, so that's what defines coffee? I thought it was defined by the fact that it's being brewed from coffee beans, or its chemical composition. I was wrong it seems, anything you don't consider coffee isn't coffee. Seriously though, do you have a real reason why it's not coffee?

While this is interesting, and there certainly is enough data points to satisfy the law of large numbers.... there isn't enough information about this study available to be conclusive. They only tracked coffee drinking and no other habits. People with a family history of a disease do not represent a genetic link like many people think (ie. a genetic weakness to some chemical found within coffee). The greater link tends to be learned habits. This learned habit could be coffee consumption, surely enough though. The study is interesting, but it's not conclusive. Also, they say the link is NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT. I'm counting the days till this shows up on the local news. They do love to spread inflammatory stories because there isn't enough bad news in the world.

canadamus_prime:

Care to explain the difference to me then, besides what I already stated above?

The difference is that you strengthen genetic expression that was already present in the organism you are modifying rather than introducing a foreign gene that never required the existence of any natural occurrence of the gene. It's possible to introduce a gene in a tomato plant that will make it resist cold weather. Genetic modification gives us the possibility to make things nature never would. Selective breeding uses what nature is already using. Is there really no difference?

Yopaz:

canadamus_prime:

Care to explain the difference to me then, besides what I already stated above?

The difference is that you strengthen genetic expression that was already present in the organism you are modifying rather than introducing a foreign gene that never required the existence of any natural occurrence of the gene. It's possible to introduce a gene in a tomato plant that will make it resist cold weather. Genetic modification gives us the possibility to make things nature never would. Selective breeding uses what nature is already using. Is there really no difference?

We're still talking about producing plants and animals with traits we desire, so no.

canadamus_prime:

Yopaz:

canadamus_prime:

Care to explain the difference to me then, besides what I already stated above?

The difference is that you strengthen genetic expression that was already present in the organism you are modifying rather than introducing a foreign gene that never required the existence of any natural occurrence of the gene. It's possible to introduce a gene in a tomato plant that will make it resist cold weather. Genetic modification gives us the possibility to make things nature never would. Selective breeding uses what nature is already using. Is there really no difference?

We're still talking about producing plants and animals with traits we desire, so no.

Whatever so you say buddy.

image

Canadish:

canadamus_prime:

Yopaz:

The difference is that you strengthen genetic expression that was already present in the organism you are modifying rather than introducing a foreign gene that never required the existence of any natural occurrence of the gene. It's possible to introduce a gene in a tomato plant that will make it resist cold weather. Genetic modification gives us the possibility to make things nature never would. Selective breeding uses what nature is already using. Is there really no difference?

We're still talking about producing plants and animals with traits we desire, so no.

Whatever so you say buddy.

image

I could say the same to you since you seem to enjoy buying into fearmongering*. But whatever, I'm done derailing this thread.

EDIT: *Not meaning to be rude or disrespectful.

No one should worry about the results of a single observational study, ever.

canadamus_prime:

Yopaz:

canadamus_prime:

Care to explain the difference to me then, besides what I already stated above?

The difference is that you strengthen genetic expression that was already present in the organism you are modifying rather than introducing a foreign gene that never required the existence of any natural occurrence of the gene. It's possible to introduce a gene in a tomato plant that will make it resist cold weather. Genetic modification gives us the possibility to make things nature never would. Selective breeding uses what nature is already using. Is there really no difference?

We're still talking about producing plants and animals with traits we desire, so no.

So there's no difference in introducing genes that would never ever occur in in an organism and using genes already present in the organism?

Can you please explain the reasoning behind that?

E. Coli could never have started producing human insulin without a genetic modification. A tomato could and have naturally evolved to have 3 carpels. With selective breeding we just used that mutation because it gave us bigger fruits.

What you're saying here is that there's no difference between possible and impossible.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here